DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 08/13/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 8-11 have been newly added. Therefore, claims 1-3 and 6-11 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1-3 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps). Thus, the claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
“triggering a test;”, “providing…for a user;”, “testing and certifying a user, using the test provided…on a specified software task is specified to a user's work-related tasks;”, “tracking a set of user test data from the test to generated tracked data,”, “analyze user behavior, educational content, and user profiles, wherein the tracked data comprises an efficiency score and an effectiveness score, wherein the efficiency score is generated using the elapsed time measured, wherein the effectiveness score is generated using how many steps are taken by the user to complete the test;”, “analyzing…a user behavior, an educational content, and a user profiles, based on the analysis and the set of user test data, matching the user with an educational content;” and “modifying…by reconfiguring the plurality of steps…using…,the efficiency score, the effectiveness score…, in response to the tracked data”
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea of testing an employee, tracking/analyzing performance of the employee, tailoring and reorganizing content related to work training tasks encompasses commercial interactions, (i.e., marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations), managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between people, (i.e., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), and mental processes, (i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.04 II
[003] Companies and other enterprise utilize various applications to complete business- related tasks. These can be new applications that users need to be trained on. Additionally, previously/currently used applications can be updated. Updates can include new or different functionalities and workflows. Manual training can be time consuming and costly. Additionally, it is difficult to track user progress during manual trainings. Accordingly, improvements to automatically training, testing and tracking users through in-application workflows are desired.
Consistent with the disclosure, the series of steps recite sales/marketing activities, business relations, and managing personal behavior or interactions between people because they cover concepts relating to how an organization or company administers testing, tracks test performance, and tailors/reorganizes content relating to the work-related tasks. Also, the recited limitations of “analyzing”, “matching”, and “modifying” in the context of the claim are processes for collecting and analyzing known information with respect to testing and monitored activities of the employee to tailor content and make decisions, i.e., reorganize task steps for the employee, which are analysis steps that may be performed in the human mind or carried out by a human with pen paper. In this way the claims recite subject matter that may be reasonably characterized as falling within the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a computerized method”, “using an online education platform”, “an interface”, “the interface”, “a specified software application using an application training workflow, wherein the training workflow”, “wherein the software application includes the interface for launching showing functionality and testing functionality, wherein the showing functionality provides the user with a plurality of steps for performing certain tasks and the testing functionality provides the test for testing and certifying the user's ability to perform the plurality of steps”, “wherein the interface comprises a timer that starts upon initiation…and measures an elapsed time from initiation to completion”, “by the timer”, “wherein the online education platform comprises at least one computer system and a machine learning functionality running on the at least one computer system, wherein the machine learning functionality is configured to”, “using the timer”, “using the machine learning functionality”, “automatically”, “one or more machine learning algorithms” are all recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. The applicant’s own specification [Figs. 1, 4, ¶ 0020-0029] describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing any of the particulars, such that the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computer components being used to perform the judicial exception. As such, the additional elements above merely add the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional element of “wherein…as reconfigured is presented to a subsequent user…” adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g).
The other additional elements of “useful for showing, testing, and certifying users-comprising:” recited in the preamble is nothing more than an attempt to limit the claimed invention to a particular field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception, which does not a meaningful limitation to the claimed invention, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h)
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
6. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: t integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a computerized method”, “using an online education platform”, “an interface”, “the interface”, “a specified software application using an application training workflow, wherein the training workflow”, “wherein the software application includes the interface for launching showing functionality and testing functionality, wherein the showing functionality provides the user with a plurality of steps for performing certain tasks and the testing functionality provides the test for testing and certifying the user's ability to perform the plurality of steps”, “wherein the interface comprises a timer that starts upon initiation…and measures an elapsed time from initiation to completion”, “by the timer”, “wherein the online education platform comprises at least one computer system and a machine learning functionality running on the at least one computer system, wherein the machine learning functionality is configured to”, “using the timer”, “using the machine learning functionality”, “automatically”, “one or more machine learning algorithms” at best amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are ineligible at Step 2B.
The other additional element of “wherein…as reconfigured is presented to a subsequent user…” were considered insignificant extra-solution activity under Step 2A Prong Two and must be re-evaluated at Step 2B to determine whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) cites the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs court decisions which indicate “receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “presenting offers and gathering statistics” is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Thus, the claim is ineligible at Step 2B.
7. Claims 2-3 and 6-11 are dependent of claim 1.
Claims 2-3 and 6-9 recite (i.e., a team-wide test, an organization wide test, a bank teller, performing a wire transfer, efficiency/effectiveness score is generated, determining whether the user has passed the test and/or is certified) limitations that serve to further narrow, i.e., further describe the type of information or steps that may be recited within the abstract idea, but do not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 10 recites “wherein the online education platform comprises a showing module, a testing module, and a guiding module each enabled within the specified software application, wherein the showing module provides the showing functionality, and wherein the testing module provides the testing functionality.” which are additional elements described at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Merely adding generic computing components to perform generic computing functions does not lead towards eligibility. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons,Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) Claims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer."); See Affinity, 838 F.3d at 1271 (customized user interface provided abstract tailored content) Claim 11 recites “wherein the application training workflow is triggered based on a rules engine configured with a rule that is defined using a uniform resource locator (URL) path condition associated with the specified software application” which are additional elements described at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. Here, the rules engine is being used in its normal capacity for processing data according to defined rules which amounts to generic data processing. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not alter the analysis at Step 2A Prong Two. Accordingly, these limitations recited in the dependent claims when viewed individually and in combination with the claimed invention do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linton (US 2013/0111363 A1) in view of Mehta (US 2017/0236436 A1) in further view of Kane (US 2019/0138957 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Linton discloses
a computerized method useful for showing, testing, and certifying users (¶ 0003, 0021, 0026, 0033: discloses the present disclosure relates to managing, monitoring, and promoting user development and effectiveness…providing cloud-based services for human resource management, surveying, standardized testing, personalized learning, accreditation, or the like. The system 100 is capable of determining and managing a workflow for meeting goals and objectives including defining process steps and an organization wide training program.) comprising:
triggering a test, using an online education platform (¶ 0027: discloses providing an education platform. ¶ 0052-0055: discloses providing an administrator with the ability to specify the criteria by which the performance of members of the organization he or she administrates is measured and the type of content of assessment data that should be collected. ¶ 0101-0102: discloses a user logging in to utilize the educational platform can be presented with a summary of the electronic resources that have been specified for the user to consume in a process template associated with a workflow.);
providing an interface for a user using the online education platform (¶ 0027, 0042, 0063, 0102: discloses the client application 126 may generate and present the user interface.);
testing and certifying a user, using the test provided using the online education platform, on a specified software task with a specified software application using an application training workflow (¶ 0054-0055: discloses the process template can be defined to include one or more practical steps for achieving the goals. The process template may set forth an assessment as well as a schedule for completing the assessment. The process template may specify the electronic resources that each member of the organization must consume, i.e., read, view, interact with, share, etc. within a certain timeframe.),
wherein the training workflow is specified to a user's work-related tasks (¶ 0054-0055, 0102: discloses the workflow may include a requirement that certain procedures and protocols be adhered by the users. The workflow may set forth a development plan for the user of the organization to follow.);
wherein the software application (¶ 0048) includes the interface for launching showing functionality and testing functionality (¶ 0042, 0055, 0057, 0059: discloses software for providing electronic resources for consumption and tracking user consumption and interaction with those electronic resources.),
wherein the showing functionality provides the user with a plurality of steps for performing certain tasks (¶ 0060: discloses a user 130 may be presented with an interface by a client application 126 operable on the client device 124 that shows any outstanding assignments that the user 130 must complete, the dates by the assignments must be completed, a description of what the assignments are, etc. Example assignments include, but are not limited to, requiring users to view a video, upload a video, create a lesson plan, provide a lesson plan, map curriculum, attend an event (e.g., class), provide student work, provide assessment or achievement data, receive mentoring, etc. Using this interface, the user may select an assignment) and
the testing functionality provides the test for testing and certifying the user's ability to perform the plurality of steps (¶ 0055: discloses a user may via the client application 126 ensure proper procedures are being followed and provides reminders to the users. For instance, a workflow (e.g., a process template and/or assessment template) may include a requirement that certain procedures and protocols be adhered by the users and a setting instructing the management module 222 to track compliance with these procedures and protocols and/or remind the users (e.g., via electronic message) about the procedures and protocols. The management module 222 may track compliance by using the analytics data, achievement data, assessment data, and other data stored in the data stores of the server 102 to determine whether such procedures and protocols are being followed.);
tracking a set of user test data from the test to generated tracked data (¶ 0055, 0075: discloses determining how users are progressing in achieving the goals of a workflow applicable to them…the analytics module 228 can analyze the assessment data and/or achievement data associated with the users to determine if the users are meeting the steps defined in the process template.),
wherein the online education platform (¶ 0027: discloses education platform) comprises at least one computer system (¶ 0039: discloses a computer system)
wherein the tracked data comprises an efficiency score (¶ 0065-0066: discloses the assessment module 226 is for assessing user performance. Assessing a user’s performance may include quantitatively assessing efficacy relative to goals and/or workflows.) and an effectiveness score (¶ 0065-0066: discloses the assessment module 226 is for assessing user performance. Assessing a user’s performance may include quantitatively assessing effectiveness relative to goals and/or workflows.),
wherein the efficiency score is generated using the elapsed time (¶ 0052, 0066: discloses task timers and quantitatively assessing a user’s efficacy as a performance trend over a particular period of time.),
wherein the effectiveness score is generated using how many steps are taken by the user to complete the test (¶ 0052, 0054-0055, 0063, 0066, 0075-0076: discloses analyzing the assessment data associated with users to determine if the users are meeting the steps defined in the process template of the workflow and determining how the users are progressing relative to goals of the workflow including calculating performance trends relative to the goals and identifying areas in which users are deficient. Assessing a user’s performance may include quantitatively assessing a user’s effectiveness. The analytics module may calculate an effectiveness score for a given user based on one or more assessments of that user’s performance);
based on the analysis and the set of user test data, matching the user with an educational content (¶ 0068-0069: discloses to identify one or more electronic resources for recommendation, the assessment module can compare one or more observation data, a goal, and a workflow to metadata stored with the electronic resources to identify resources that match.); and
automatically modifying the application training workflow by reconfiguring the plurality of steps of the application training workflow (Figs. 3 and 4, ¶ 0062, 0094, 0104-0105, 0107, 0109: discloses methods for managing user development/effectiveness and for re-evaluating a development plan or personalized learning based on a report. The method can personalize one or more electronic resources to address one or more needs of the one or more target users. The learning of the users can be further personalized using additional or replacement electronic resources by repeating the operations of the method.), using the online education platform (¶ 0027), the efficiency score (¶ 0106), the effectiveness score(¶ 0106), in response to the tracked data (¶ 0106),
wherein the application training workflow as reconfigured is presented to a subsequent user via the interface. (Figs. 3 and 4, ¶ 0059, 0102, 0105: discloses the method can provide electronic resources to one or more users of the organization using the educational platform. The electronic resources may be tied to the goal/workflow and may set forth a development plan for the users of the organization to follow and specify electronic resources for the users to consume. The one or more personalized resources can then be provided to the one or more target users for consumption. In some instances, the learning of users can further be personalized using additional or replacement electronic resources.)
As can be seen from the Linton reference [¶ 0027], the state of the art teaches educational platform(s) were well-known educational, developmental, evaluative, managerial, and reporting tools previously used in the industry to facilitate user development and effectiveness, however, the Linton reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Mehta reference is related to content ranking for skill development in an online education platform (¶ 0003) and teaches:
analyzing, using the machine learning functionality, a user behavior, an educational content, and a user profiles (¶ 0028: discloses various machine learning functionalities that can analyze user behavior, educational content, user profiles, etc. ¶ 0047: discloses various methods of matching users with educational content can be utilized. Furthermore, various machine learning, optimization and other analysis methodologies can be utilized to optimize the proportions of current competency-level content to higher competency-level content.);
automatically modifying the application training workflow by reconfiguring the plurality of steps of the application training workflow, using one or more machine learning algorithms (¶ 0028: discloses the machine learning analysis can be used to match users with educational content and otherwise optimize the user experience. ¶ 0067-0068: discloses automatic generation of learning pathways for users. A learning pathway can be a sequence of education content that a user consumes at a specified rate. The methods and systems provided can also be used to assess a user’s engagement with an online educational program and recommend learning pathways.)
As can be seen from the Mehta reference [¶ 0028, 0067-0068] the state of the art also teaches an educational platform and using machine learning analysis techniques to match users with educational content was well-known and previously performed in the industry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the education platform of Linton, to include the machine learning analysis techniques, as disclosed by Mehta to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Mehta, the motivation for the combination would have been to leverage machine learning and provide the most appropriate educational content that optimizes each users experience with the educational platform. (¶ 0005, 0028)
The combination of Linton and Mehta do not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Kane reference provides an effective real-time system that monitors performance of each employee of each task that is required in every step. (¶ 0063)
wherein the interface comprises a timer that starts upon initiation of the test by the user and measures an elapsed time from initiation of the test by the user to completion of the test by the user (¶ 0074: discloses the time required to complete each individual task for every phase of a particular case may be measured using an automatic or semi-automatic timer that is implemented on the server or client computer in various embodiments. For example, when an employee of an organization receives a particular task and opens it, for instance, in a dashboard, email, docket, or application, a timer may be started by the user selecting an appropriate icon or button on a user interface screen. This timer may have an automatic timeout that may be set at a predetermined time which can measure inactivity by a user. In some instances, this may trigger a reminder or popup for a user to see if the user is still working on the task but is reading information on the screen or performing operations on a non-system connected device, such as a calculator not on the computer. Once a task is completed, the user may select a task completed or other appropriate icon on the user interface, at which the timer will stop and the information may be stored by the server in a database, with similar data. This information can also be saved for the individual user to measure, track, and produce reports, e.g., for individual users or other purposes.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the educational platforms of Linton and Mehta, to include the interface comprises a timer that starts upon initiation of the test by the user and measures an elapsed time from initiation of the test by the user to completion of the test by the user, as disclosed by Kane to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Kane, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide real-time reporting advantages to organizations that indicate how long it should take an employee to complete a task. (¶ 0063, 0118)
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the combination of Linton, Mehta, and Kane discloses the computerized method,
wherein the test comprises a team-wide test/ organization-wide test triggered by an administrator. (¶ 0054, 0109: Linton discloses the process template may establish an organization-wide development plan which represents a team-wide/organization wide test and may specify the electronic resources that each member of organization must consume…receiving an instruction from an administrator.)
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Linton, Mehta, and Kane discloses the computerized method of claim 1,
wherein the test is configured for a financial professional. (¶ 0022: Linton discloses the system 100 is applicable to and can be used by any group or workforce that requires training and assessment including financial professionals such as accountants, brokers, traders, tax specialists or the like.)
The combination of references do not explicitly disclose the limitation of a bank teller. However, the Examiner asserts that the data identifying the bank teller is simply a label for the data and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of information) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bank teller be included as the type of financial professional in the combination of Linton, Meta, and Kane because the naming of the type of financial professional does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the information differently from that in the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Linton, Mehta, and Kane discloses the computerized method of claim 1,
wherein the application training workflow (¶ 0022, 0027, 0051, 0054-0055, 0102: Linton discloses the system 100 is applicable to and can be used by any group or workforce that requires training and assessment including financial professionals such as accountants, brokers, traders, tax specialists or the like. A workflow, i.e., process template, may include a requirement that certain procedures and protocols be adhered by users. The workflow may set forth a development plan for the users of the organization to follow and specify electronic resources for the users to consume.)
The combination of references do not explicitly disclose the limitation of performing a wire transfer.
However, the Examiner asserts that the data identifying performing a wire transfer is simply a label for the data and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of information) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the performing a wire transfer be included in the workflows in the combination of Linton, Meta, and Kane because the naming of the type of workflow does not functionally alter or relate to the steps of the method and merely labeling the information differently from that in the prior art does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Linton, Mehta, and Kane discloses the computerized method of claim 1,
wherein the efficiency score is generated by comparing the elapsed time measured by the timer to an expected time for completion of the test (¶ 0052, 0066: Linton discloses task timers and quantitatively assessing a user’s efficacy as a performance trend over a particular period of time.), and
wherein the effectiveness score is generated by comparing the number of steps taken by the user to complete the test to an expected number of steps for completing the test. (¶ 0052, 0054-0055, 0063, 0066, 0075-0076: Linton discloses analyzing the assessment data associated with users to determine if the users are meeting the steps defined in the process template of the workflow and determining how the users are progressing relative to goals of the workflow including calculating performance trends relative to the goals and identifying areas in which users are deficient. Assessing a user’s performance may include quantitatively assessing a user’s effectiveness. The analytics module may calculate an effectiveness score for a given user based on one or more assessments of that user’s performance)
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Linton, Mehta, and Kane discloses the computerized method of claim 1,
further comprising determining, based on a comparison of the efficiency score and the effectiveness score to one or more threshold values (¶ 0065-0066, 0073: Linton discloses the assessment module 226 for assessing user performance. Assessing a user’s performance may include quantitatively assessing a user’s effectiveness, efficacy, etc., relative to one or more criteria and/or one or more standards.), whether the user has passed the test (¶ 0065-0066, 0073-0074: Linton discloses the assessment module 226 assesses the user’s current performance level.),
wherein the user is certified in response to determining that the user has passed the test. (¶ 0021, 0033, 0065-0066: Linton discloses the performance assessment performed by the assessment module may reflect a formal annual evaluation submitted to an human resource department.)
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Linton, Mehta, and Kane discloses the computerized method of claim 1,
wherein the online education platform (¶ 0027, 0048: Linton discloses an application engine 104 for providing an educational platform) comprises
a showing module (¶ 0048, 0057: Linton discloses content module 224), a testing module (¶ 0048, 0055: Linton discloses management module 222), and a guiding module each enabled within the specified software application (¶ 0048, 0051: discloses reporting module 230),
wherein the showing module provides the showing functionality (¶ 0048, 0057, 0060: Linton discloses content module 224 is software for providing electronic resources for consumption.), and
wherein the testing module provides the testing functionality. (¶ 0048, 0055: Linton discloses management module 222 is software for ensuring procedures are being followed and tracking analytics data, achievement data, assessment data and other data to determine whether the procedures and protocols are being followed.)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linton, Mehta, Kane, in further view of Hogan (US 2003/0212594 A1)
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Linton, Mehta, and Kane do not explicitly disclose the following limitations.
In the same field of endeavor, the Hogan reference is related to personalized content delivery (abstract, ¶ 0026) and teaches:
wherein the application training workflow is triggered based on a rules engine configured with a rule that is defined using a uniform resource locator (URL) path condition associated with the specified software application. (Fig. 3, ¶ 0124-0132: discloses the process starts when a web browser requests a page from a server. The rules engine 16 is capable of querying the lookup tables 18 to determine the relationship between certain referring URL’s and group membership. The lookup tables are specific tables that are custom designed depending on the application for which the system is employed. The rules engine 16 returns to the server 12 the content determined to be most relevant to the user)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Linton, Mehta, and Kane to include the features of a rules engine, as disclosed by Hogan to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Hogan, the motivation for the combination would have been to add the rules engine to enable and provide personalization benefits so that targeted content can be provided on the application of the user. (Fig. 3, ¶ 0011)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “Amended Claim 1 Recites a Technological Improvement, Not a Result-Oriented Instruction to "Apply It" The Final Office Action maintains that the claims are "results oriented" and that the specification frames the problem addressed "in terms of how to improve existing online education systems," rather than "how to improve computer technology." The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response alleges claim 1 recites a technological improvement and addresses problems relating to existing online systems. Here, the remarks set forth an improvement in a conclusory manner, i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The original specification is silent and Applicant does not identify any passages from the specification that provide any findings to support a technological improvement. At best, the claimed invention is described as “an online education system” at a high-level of generality and is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further agues “Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 now recites the specific technical mechanism by which that improvement is achieved, rather than merely reciting the desired result. As amended, claim 1 recites that the interface timer "starts upon initiation of the test by the user and measures an elapsed time from initiation of the test by the user to completion of the test by the user," and that the efficiency score is generated from that measured elapsed time. Claim 1 further recites that the machine learning functionality does not merely "suggest" an update, but instead "automatically modif[ies] the application training workflow by reconfiguring the plurality of steps of the application training workflow," and that "the application training workflow as reconfigured is presented to a subsequent user via the interface. The amended claim recites that the online education platform itself automatically reconfigures the software training workflow, i.e., the workflow's own sequence of steps served to subsequent users is automatically changed by the system based on machine-learning analysis of objective, timer- and step-count-derived performance data.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The specificity of the presently recited techniques does not automatically indicate or lead towards eligibility. Here, claim 1 does not recite any technical improvements to the “online education platform”, “the interface timer”, “machine learning”, “workflows”, or their generic functionalities. Automating processes using generic computers does not improve computer technology. The courts have previously held "merely claiming 'those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance,' does not make a claim eligible at step one." See Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1328; see Int'! Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ( claiming result-oriented functions did not claim how to achieve the results in a non-abstract way);Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016) Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (using result-focused, functional claim language is a frequent feature of ineligible claims, especially those that claim the use of generic computer and network technology to carry out economic transactions). For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “This is not a person (or a computer merely instructed to "apply" an abstract idea) recommending that someone else update a workflow at some future point; it is the software application training workflow being automatically reconfigured by the computer system and then served, in its reconfigured form, to the next user through the same interface. This function cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and it is not a generic computer merely used as a tool: the claim requires the online education platform to measure elapsed time via a timer, compute two distinct machine-derived metrics from that timer and from step-count data, and use those metrics together with machine learning algorithms to change what the software application training workflow presents to future users.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response does not make the claimed invention any less abstract or lead towards eligibility. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c) which discusses using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. This section provides an example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695.
Here, the claimed invention is for an online education platform that tests bank employee(s) on how to perform work tasks, i.e., wire transfers, relating to a software application. During testing, the system can time the user and count the steps taken. It can then generate performance data such as efficiency and effectiveness scores. Machine learning may analyzes and to matches users with helpful content. The system modifies workflow(s) based on test results. Merely reciting additional elements (such as online education platform, a timer, machine learning algorithms, software application training workflows) does not preclude the identified limitations under Prong One of the analysis from being within the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity groupings. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “This is analogous to the sort of self-improving technical operation found patent-eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the claims were directed to a specific, automated technique (using rules to generate an accurate and realistic lip synchronization) that improved an existing technological process, rather than simply using a computer as a tool to implement an otherwise abstract idea. Just as the automated rules in McRO produced a technological result (synchronized animation) that could not practically be replicated by prior, manual techniques used by human animators, the timer-driven metrics and automatic workflow reconfiguration of amended claim 1 produce a technological result, namely a training workflow that is itself automatically altered by the system in response to machine-derived performance data, that has no analog in a purely manual or mental process.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner asserts the claims in McRO were directed to specific technological improvements in computer technology, whereas, the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea for testing, training, and certifying employees on workflows using generic computing components recited at a high-level of generality. The recited timing and scoring limitations being performed during and after testing are tasks necessary to carry out the abstract idea, but do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology. The asserted claims do not recite a comparable technological improvement. Although the remarks restate various steps and features recited in the claim as an ordered combination, claims are generally not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer. BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Claim Is Not Directed to a Mental Process or a Method of Organizing Human Activity The Office Action asserts that the steps of "analyzing," "matching," and "suggesting" are "processes for collecting and comparing known information ... which are steps that may be performed in the human mind or carried out by a human with pen paper." Applicant respectfully submits that, as amended, claim 1 no longer merely recites a suggestion that a human could act upon; it recites that the online education platform itself automatically reconfigures the plurality of steps of the application training workflow and serves that reconfigured workflow to a subsequent user via the interface. A human mind cannot reconfigure a software application training workflow (that is, the actual sequence of steps served by a software interface to other users), and no pen-and- paper analog exists for a computer system automatically rewriting and redeploying its own software-driven training sequence based on the outputs of machine learning algorithms applied to timer-derived and step-count-derived performance metrics.” “For at least these reasons, amended claim 1 recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and integrates any such idea, to the extent one is present, into a practical application by reciting a specific technical mechanism, namely timer-based elapsed-time measurement combined with automatic, machine-learning-driven reconfiguration of the software training workflow itself, that is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the alleged abstract idea. Withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as to claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 which depend therefrom, is respectfully requested.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner asserts merely automating a process for training employees on work tasks, i.e., wire transfers, is insufficient for providing an improvement to computer functionality. The recited additional elements including “online education platform”, “timer”, and “machine learning functionalities” is/are best understood as off-the-shelf generic computer and display technology being used to aid in performing the abstract idea. See Spec [Fig. 1, 9, ¶ 0022-0024] It is also important for applicant to note the inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. The utility of the method does not make the claim eligible. See Univ. of Fla.Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (automated data synthesis technology did not make claims non-abstract even if it produced "life altering consequences"); In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (an abstract idea's tax benefits and usefulness did not confer eligibility); In re Mahapatra, 842 F. App'x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are rendered patent eligible.") In regards to monopolization statements the courts have also previously held, "[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." See Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379; see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63. As previously explained, claims 2, 3, 6, and 7 further describe the information or steps that may be performed within the abstract idea, but do not make the claimed invention any less abstract. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 6-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights